Kurt Wintje
PLSC 327
Professor Regan
10/05/06
U.S Policy Options towards Iran’s Nuclear Program
With the triumph of the Islamic Revolution and the ascendance of Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 1979, the special relationship between the United States and Iran dissolved, and a long rift continuing to this day opened. The U.S broke off official diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980 following the seizure of the U.S Embassy by radicalized students, and the two nations have only had limited official contact ever since (Katzman). It is in this troubled context wherein the ongoing conflict over Iran’s nuclear program is unfolding. In 2002, an Iranian dissident revealed the existence of previously unknown nuclear research facilities and the U.S government accused Iran of attempting to make nuclear weapons. The following year the International Atomic Energy Agency accused Iran of failing to report certain nuclear activities and materials, but also declared there was no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. Multi-lateral negotiations between Iran, France, Germany and Britain regarding the cessation of uranium enrichment as well as an enhanced inspection regime for Iran’s nuclear program also began in 2004. Following the breakdown of these negotiations and the resumption of uranium enrichment the matter of Iran’s nuclear program was referred to the United Nations Security Council in 2006 (British Broadcasting Corporation).
Initially, American foreign policy preference appeared to favor regime change along the lines of the U.S policy in Iraq in the early stages of the crisis once the extent of Iran’s nuclear program was revealed. President Bush went so far as to label Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil” along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union speech. However, the pressing American interest in curbing Iran’s nuclear program has lead to the de-emphasis of the regime change option in favor of multi-lateral negotiations focused on providing Iran with incentives to discontinue all nuclear activities that could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons (Katzman). Although the regime change alternative has apparently receded from the top of the U.S agenda, the Bush Administration has categorically refused to take it off the table. This option can be carried out in multiple ways, the first being an all out military invasion and occupation of Iran similar to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is highly unlikely, but the main advantages of this option are readily apparent: namely, the U.S can permanently neutralize Iran as a military and regional threat by overthrowing a hostile authoritarian regime, with a friendlier democratic regime. However, there are many downsides which make this option so unlikely, including a certain lack of international support for an invasion by a military already stretched to the breaking point in Iraq. Secondly, as illustrated by the Iraq quagmire, it is doubtful that the U.S can occupy Iran and pave the way for a Western-style democratic regime, if indeed the U.S had the military resources to attempt this, which in all likelihood does not. Another botched Mid-East occupation could spread chaos and terrorism all over the Middle East, destabilizing other regional U.S allies, which would be disastrous to the U.S economy at home because of the almost certain spike in oil prices (Eisenstadt).